Eyewitness???Two shower incidents, one after he promised to never be in that position again.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Eyewitness???Two shower incidents, one after he promised to never be in that position again.
Two shower incidents, one after he promised to never be in that position again.
The 98 incident was thoroughly investigated with no charges filed. If there was any evidence he rubbed his schlong against v6, I have no doubt that charges would have been filed.
Sandusky has stated he was specifically told to never shower again with v6 and he never did.
Iin the 2000/2001 incident, v2/am stated they were horsing around slapping towels with nothing sexual involved. NCIS Special Agent says that he doesn’t find McQueary’s testimony credible and neither do I. Sandusky clearly exercised poor judgment in showering with am, but there is nothing to suggest it was criminal other than McQueary’s dubious testimony.
Got ya Poz, as. I'm getting older, sorry about the innuendo, I truly don't understand.Just because you don’t get a charge out of rubbing your schlong against somebody doesn’t mean that person doesn’t feel offended by your schlong being rubbed against them.
Is that cleearly stated?
A straight man told not to shower with a woman ever again but given an opportunity to do so in an otherwise vacant location might just take that chance. Same situation here.
We’ll never agree on this Franco, so let’s just let it go.
Two shower incidents, one after he promised to never be in that position again.
I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I just don’t find McQueary’s testimony that the 2000/2001 incident was something sexual at all credible. I am guessing from your response that you do. I believe that McQueary’s testimony including the false grand jury presentment was orchestrated by Frank Fina. I hope that Fina has to answer for his transgressions, but am concerned that he will only get a slap on the wrist. I believe he is largely responsible for the damages caused as a result of the fiasco.
There is no good reason for a man to be alone with in a shower with an unrelated child. Especially after having been investigated by the police for having done so a few years earlier. None.
I question a lot of the same things that you do. But the showering just doesn’t have a reasonable innocent explanation.
I don;t disagree that showering with an unrelated minor is not a good idea. I just don't think the punishment should be life in jail especially if it can't be established that the motivation was sexual.
I understand that point Franco. But honestly, unless Sandusky was developmentally delayed there is no innocent explanation for that behavior.
What's your point? Jerry couldn't recognize that behavior is not acceptable? Guess what, the police and DPW told him it was not acceptable just in case he couldn't figure it out on his own. Jerry agreed to never do it again.What about the fact that Jerry’s parents owned a Rec center and that Jerry grew up in an environment where men and boys showered and probably also swam naked together all the time.
What's your point? Jerry couldn't recognize that behavior is not acceptable? Guess what, the police and DPW told him it was not acceptable just in case he couldn't figure it out on his own. Jerry agreed to never do it again.
Check what was noted in the 1998 police report about what Jerry agreed to. It is not believable that Jerry would think that would only apply to V6.I believe there is a discrepancy over what Jerry agreed to. Jerry has stated that he remembered that he agreed specifically to never shower again with v6 and not that he agreed to never shower again with any boy. After 1998 he never showered with v6 again.
V2 was like a son to him. Jerry stood with him at senior day for his last high school football game, V2 lived with Jerry when he attended Penn State. V2 invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. V2 drove over 10 hours to attend the funeral of Jerry’s father. On the day of the infamous Lasch building shower, Jerry and v2 had driven from Washington Pa. back to State College after a book signing event for Jerry’s new book. V2 has said that nothing sexual ever happened with Jerry including at the Lasch building shower incident.
Check what was noted in the 1998 police report about what Jerry agreed to. It is not believable that Jerry would think that would only apply to V6.
What about the fact that Jerry’s parents owned a Rec center and that Jerry grew up in an environment where men and boys showered and probably also swam naked together all the time.
He promised not to do it again. He did it again. You can’t just gloss that over.
If he thought it was OK before the police investigated him the first time, he sure as hell learned at that time that it was not OK to do. He did it again. Why would he do it again?
Regardless, you seem to be saying that the only crimes your are sure Jerry is actually guilty of is horsing around in the showers with two boys. Both of whom would later strongly defend him as heterosexual adult men as late as 2011.
If that’s the case, that situation is much closer to “completely innocent” that what Sandusky was convicted of and what the public believes he committed. Under that situation, Sandusky is likely only guilty of misdemeanors, may end up with probation and no jail time, and Joe Paterno never gets fired or shamed.
The actions that you continually describe don't amount to any sort of crime. The actions that anyone (other than a few sketchy victims) has described don't amount to any sort of crime. Find me a crime that wasn't simply dreamed up in an attorney's office. Not creepiness - an actual crime.Completely innocent? Where do you get that from?
What about the fact that Jerry’s parents owned a Rec center and that Jerry grew up in an environment where men and boys showered and probably also swam naked together all the time.
Put you on a jury to listen to what charges? Breaking a promise? This is the part I don't get w/ you. There need to be actual crimes to put people in jail. You don't seem to want to accept that. Your description of being on a jury is sort of frightening to be honest. Jurors are supposed to examine facts, not preen about their feelings and virtue.Put me on a jury and the basic fact that he was investigated by police for showering with and having physical contact with a boy while doing so, warned and agreed to not do so again in the future, then was witnessed doing so again a few years later would lead me to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Put you on a jury to listen to what charges? Breaking a promise? This is the part I don't get w/ you. There need to be actual crimes to put people in jail. You don't seem to want to accept that. Your description of being on a jury is sort of frightening to be honest. Jurors are supposed to examine facts, not preen about their feelings and virtue.
Put you on a jury to listen to what charges? Breaking a promise? This is the part I don't get w/ you. There need to be actual crimes to put people in jail. You don't seem to want to accept that. Your description of being on a jury is sort of frightening to be honest. Jurors are supposed to examine facts, not preen about their feelings and virtue.
I think it is this sort of mentality that led Curley and Schultz to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit.
Put me on a jury and the basic fact that he was investigated by police for showering with and having physical contact with a boy while doing so, warned and agreed to not do so again in the future, then was witnessed doing so again a few years later would lead me to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I've told you before, this is the same kid that was on trips with him to Orlando, Los Angeles and when he spoke at the AFCA convention in San Fran. This wasn't a random TSM kid he barely knew. AM also testified consistently he was never abused on any of these trips. By coincidence, he later remembered only being abused at Lasch and not on any of those overnight trips.Not true.
Franco, give me an innocent reason for him to be alone in a shower having close physical contact with a child.
Not true.
Franco, give me an innocent reason for him to be alone in a shower having close physical contact with a child.
They had just finished a workout and had worked up a sweat.
You’re being disingenuous. You know I didn’t ask why they would have to shower.
I gave you a completely innocent reason for why they would shower. I am guessing you are specifically asking for an innocent reason why he would make physical contact in the shower referring to the hug he gave in the shower. I believe that Sandusky is a touchy, feely type of person and that the hug was not meant to be sexual. I believe it was meant to be friendly and that he was interested in developing a long term friendly relationship. In fact that is what occurred - Sandusky and v6 has a 13 year friendly, non-sexual relationship.
Bullshit
You seem like an intelligent man. There is no way an intelligent man thinks hugging a teenage boy in the shower is just an innocent, friendly thing to do. No way.
It is also time for the Sandusky Innocence Project to stop pretending that 19 men of varying ages showering together like we all did in HS is the same thing as a man and a 12 yo boy showering together with nobody else there. The SIP has managed to take a thread about Frank Fina saying we all think Jerry is innocent, and provide evidence to support that conclusion, which is a slander on the vast majority of us.Bullshit
You seem like an intelligent man. There is no way an intelligent man thinks hugging a teenage boy in the shower is just an innocent, friendly thing to do. No way.
This is rich. You sure slander easy Dem. When you want to, of course.The SIP has managed to take a thread about Frank Fina saying we all think Jerry is innocent, and provide evidence to support that conclusion, which is a slander on the vast majority of us.
You should not find it surprising that I object to being lumped together with you in defense of a sex predator. Obviously you feel no shame about it. Just like Jerry, you have convinced yourself.This is rich. You sure slander easy Dem. When you want to, of course.
I couldn't care less about JS other than the fact that he needs a new trial for the citizens of PA to live in a non-banana republic.You should not fond it surprising that I object to being lumped together with you in defense of a sex predator. Obviously you feel no shame about it. Just like Jerry, you have convinced yourself.
It is also time for the Sandusky Innocence Project to stop pretending that 19 men of varying ages showering together like we all did in HS is the same thing as a man and a 12 yo boy showering together with nobody else there. The SIP has managed to take a thread about Frank Fina saying we all think Jerry is innocent, and provide evidence to support that conclusion, which is a slander on the vast majority of us.
You are welcome to your own opinion. I agree that hugging a boy could possibly be motivation for a sexual relationship. However, when there is no evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that he ever had a sexual relationship with anybody other than his wife or that there was ever pornography in his possession, then I think it is entirely plausible that the hug was friendly and not sexual.